Psychedelic risks and benefits: A cross-sectional survey study.

IF 4.5 3区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of Psychopharmacology Pub Date : 2024-11-29 DOI:10.1177/02698811241292951
Sean P Goldy, Benjamin A Du, Julia S Rohde, Sandeep M Nayak, Justin C Strickland, Rebecca Ehrenkranz, Michael Levine, Frederick S Barrett, David B Yaden
{"title":"Psychedelic risks and benefits: A cross-sectional survey study.","authors":"Sean P Goldy, Benjamin A Du, Julia S Rohde, Sandeep M Nayak, Justin C Strickland, Rebecca Ehrenkranz, Michael Levine, Frederick S Barrett, David B Yaden","doi":"10.1177/02698811241292951","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>As classic psychedelics' therapeutic potential is studied and their popularity continues to rise, it is important to establish their relative risks and benefits. Previous surveys have tended to use convenience sampling on social media, select participants who have had either extremely positive or negative effects, and have not compared the risk/benefit profile of psychedelics to other substances.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To address these limitations, we gathered samples from an opt-in panel service using quota-based sampling to approximate demographics representing US Census data, did not pre-specify positive or negative experiences, and compared experiences with psychedelics to those with cannabis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted two studies, one using a between-subjects design (<i>n</i> = 743) and one using a within-subjects design (<i>n</i> = 514), in which participants recruited from an opt-in panel service reflected on prior experience with psychedelics or cannabis and indicated self-reported risks and benefits associated with their experience.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Results indicated that first or most memorable psychedelic experiences were associated with greater acute challenging effects and persisting negative effects than first or most memorable cannabis experiences, but psychedelic experiences were also associated with greater positive acute and persisting effects. Common predictors of negative and positive acute and persisting effects with psychedelics included various experience qualities (e.g., dose level, presence of others) and individual differences (e.g., religiosity, personality), though only to a small degree.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These findings on psychedelic experiences provide a more nuanced characterization of risks and benefits and their predictors.</p>","PeriodicalId":16892,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Psychopharmacology","volume":" ","pages":"2698811241292951"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Psychopharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02698811241292951","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: As classic psychedelics' therapeutic potential is studied and their popularity continues to rise, it is important to establish their relative risks and benefits. Previous surveys have tended to use convenience sampling on social media, select participants who have had either extremely positive or negative effects, and have not compared the risk/benefit profile of psychedelics to other substances.

Aims: To address these limitations, we gathered samples from an opt-in panel service using quota-based sampling to approximate demographics representing US Census data, did not pre-specify positive or negative experiences, and compared experiences with psychedelics to those with cannabis.

Methods: We conducted two studies, one using a between-subjects design (n = 743) and one using a within-subjects design (n = 514), in which participants recruited from an opt-in panel service reflected on prior experience with psychedelics or cannabis and indicated self-reported risks and benefits associated with their experience.

Results: Results indicated that first or most memorable psychedelic experiences were associated with greater acute challenging effects and persisting negative effects than first or most memorable cannabis experiences, but psychedelic experiences were also associated with greater positive acute and persisting effects. Common predictors of negative and positive acute and persisting effects with psychedelics included various experience qualities (e.g., dose level, presence of others) and individual differences (e.g., religiosity, personality), though only to a small degree.

Conclusions: These findings on psychedelic experiences provide a more nuanced characterization of risks and benefits and their predictors.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
致幻剂的风险和益处:一项横断面调查研究。
背景:随着经典迷幻药的治疗潜力的研究和它们的普及程度不断上升,确定它们的相对风险和益处是很重要的。之前的调查倾向于在社交媒体上使用方便的抽样,选择那些有极端积极或消极影响的参与者,并且没有将致幻剂的风险/收益与其他物质进行比较。目的:为了解决这些局限性,我们使用基于配额的抽样从一个可选择的小组服务中收集样本,以近似代表美国人口普查数据的人口统计数据,没有预先指定积极或消极的经历,并将迷幻药的经历与大麻的经历进行比较。方法:我们进行了两项研究,一项采用受试者间设计(n = 743),另一项采用受试者内设计(n = 514),其中参与者从一个选择加入的小组服务中招募,反映了之前使用迷幻药或大麻的经历,并指出了与他们的经历相关的风险和益处。结果:结果表明,与第一次或最难忘的大麻体验相比,第一次或最难忘的迷幻体验与更大的急性挑战效应和持续的负面效应相关,但迷幻体验也与更大的积极急性效应和持续效应相关。迷幻药的急性和持续性负面和正面影响的常见预测因素包括不同的体验质量(例如,剂量水平,他人的存在)和个体差异(例如,宗教信仰,个性),尽管只有很小的程度。结论:这些关于迷幻体验的发现为风险和益处及其预测因素提供了更细致的特征描述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Psychopharmacology
Journal of Psychopharmacology 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
4.90%
发文量
126
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Psychopharmacology is a fully peer-reviewed, international journal that publishes original research and review articles on preclinical and clinical aspects of psychopharmacology. The journal provides an essential forum for researchers and practicing clinicians on the effects of drugs on animal and human behavior, and the mechanisms underlying these effects. The Journal of Psychopharmacology is truly international in scope and readership.
期刊最新文献
Toward effective oxytocin interventions in autism: Overcoming challenges and harnessing opportunities. A randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of pramipexole in addition to mood stabilisers for patients with treatment-resistant bipolar depression (the PAX-BD study). Catalyst for change: Psilocybin's antidepressant mechanisms-A systematic review. Associations between paraoxonase-1 activity and therapeutic drug monitoring indicators in schizophrenia patients treated with olanzapine: A cross-sectional study. Haloperidol dopamine receptor occupancy and antagonism correspond to delirium agitation scores and EPS risk: A PBPK-PD modeling analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1